mega thread Everypony's Religion And Why?

[Steel Accord 6,660]

No, I can only say that you enslave yourselves to a cause of which there is no proof and that many were inducted by just being casually forced or activly forced into something where they may not know any better or think critically and evaluate what they are being told

 

Of which I was taught when I was a child, to question and think critically. Taught that blind faith, was false faith. This view of yours saddens me. I extend my hand to you, applaud you for your path. In turn, you condemn the path I've chosen?

Edited September 24, 2015 by Steel Accord

[-Octavia- 1,176]

Certainly I feel grateful to God for many things. Is it wrong to be thankful for having life, liberty, and certain creature comforts I've been afforded? To want to make the most out of those gifts in a positive way? To BE the best me that I can be?

 

I ask again, are these desires and gratitudes ignoble?

Ignoble? Of course not. But can you guarantee such values would have been your own had you not found such attachment with religion?

 

An ambiguous question, I suppose.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Wubtavia

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Ignoble? Of course not. But can you guarantee such values would have been your own had you not found such attachment with religion?

 

I'm sorry, could you perhaps rephrase the question? I'm not quite sure what you are asking me. Certainly I think humans are naturally good if that's what you mean.

[Akari of Duskshire 581]

That there is a benevolent deity, that we are all given the freedom to be the best that we can be but also the freedom to fail in that?

 

That's what puzzles me about more zealous folks.  If it's true that we're all condemned to a life of eternal suffering if we don't heed the laws and desires of a deity, then why do we have free will?

 

 

 

But can you guarantee such values would have been your own had you not found such attachment with religion?

 

 

I'm sure people can make values their own, religion or none.  People are never exactly the same, after all.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Akari of Duskshire

[Steel Accord 6,660]

That's what puzzles me about more zealous folks.  If it's true that we're all condemned to a life of eternal suffering if we don't heed the laws and desires of a deity, then why do we have free will?

 

Well that's the Calvanist philosophy for ya. They say you don't. You're either bound for Heaven or Hell, live like a saint all your life your still going to end up eternally alone and forsaken, kill an entire family and celebrate by drinking yourself to sleep you'll still be bathed in God's love. My high school graduating class could probably tell you that was the first time in class that I slammed the desk in passionate rage.

 

Thank Christ this school of thought is functionally dead in today's world. (For historical note, Calvanism was an offshoot of Martin Luther's Protestant reformation.)

Edited September 24, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Akari of Duskshire 581]

@@Steel Accord,

 

Ah, that's good.  XD  Honestly, that philosophy makes no sense at all.  God would not forsake someone who has been kind all their life, would he? 

[Steel Accord 6,660]

@@Steel Accord,

 

Ah, that's good.  XD  Honestly, that philosophy makes no sense at all.  God would not forsake someone who has been kind all their life, would he? 

 

My father once put it in a way that has remained with me to this day and colored my worldview.

 

"Do you have to be Christian, to be like Christ?"

[-Octavia- 1,176]

I'm sorry, could you perhaps rephrase the question? I'm not quite sure what you are asking me. Certainly I think humans are naturally good if that's what you mean.

That is what I meant. Or at least it was similar to what I meant, but your answer affirmed it indirectly anyways. Apologies for the late reply.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

That is what I meant. Or at least it was similar to what I meant, but your answer affirmed it indirectly anyways. Apologies for the late reply.

 

Ah no worries. Yes, I do believe that humans, if left to their own devices, are more likely to act in kindness rather than cruelty. At worst, most people are lazy and prone to making excuses, but I don't believe the average person to be actively malicious.

[Trixie Heartstrings 434]

I've noticed more wiccans and pagens than I'd expect, along with one person saying he/she is both a satanist and an atheist. Growing up in areas with mostly christain and jewish populations, I never met anyone that was of a different faith. Despite being agnostic, I'm curious about those religons because they seem to get written off as "evil" by the more vocal christains (most of them don't have a problem), and after seeing someone say satanism isn't satan worship, even though many people think that's what satanism is. Also, as far as christians and homosexuality, I know that there are plenty of christains that aren't anti-gay. Almost all of my family members are christain, yet they all support LGBT rights. Including my parents and my aunt, who are ministers, and one of those I previously mentioned was excited about marrying a same-sex couple.

[Sunwalker 981]

Also, as far as christians and homosexuality, I know that there are plenty of christains that aren't anti-gay. Almost all of my family members are christain, yet they all support LGBT rights.

I am not sure if this was what you meant or not, but just in case... Not being "anti-gay" and supporting "LGBT rights" aren't necessarily synonymous. It is possible to disagree with someone, while still being respectful. I am saying this because I have seen often out there the mentality that if you disagree with X then you hate X, which is nonsense -_-.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Sunwalker

[Trixie Heartstrings 434]

I am not sure if this was what you meant or not, but just in case... Not being "anti-gay" and supporting "LGBT rights" aren't necessarily synonymous. It is possible to disagree with someone, while still being respectful. I am saying this because I have seen often out there the mentality that if you disagree with X then you hate X, which is nonsense -_-.

Oh, sorry about that, should've been careful with my wording. Anyway, I meant to say that my family supports LGBT rights, but obviously anyone who supports LGBT rights isn't anti-gay, but not being anti-gay doesn't automatically mean they support it, kind of like how all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

[Sunwalker 981]

Oh, sorry about that, should've been careful with my wording. Anyway, I meant to say that my family supports LGBT rights, but obviously anyone who supports LGBT rights isn't anti-gay, but not being anti-gay doesn't automatically mean they support it, kind of like how all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

No problem! I already imagined that it was that what you meant

 

For the sake of the character limit, I am saying that I don't hate gays or anything, my approach is to live and let live.

[Tesla 167]

But even Buddhism asks that you have belief. Take it from me, I'm a syncretic Christian-Buddhist. The two are more similar than first glance may tell. Even if the Buddha is not worshipped as a God, Buddhism still posits that there is a greater order to the universe beyond the physical, indeed, the supernatural. It's only the "form" and method of attaining that higher order that differs between the two.

 

Don't mistake me, I'm not saying you are somehow immoral or lesser for lacking belief. Faith is, after all, deeply personal and it's what one does that matters according to both Christianity and Buddhism, not what one believes. I'm just trying to clear up that Buddhism, at least outside of certain sects, is not a "secular religion" devoid of concepts like Hell, deities, and the afterlife. (Indeed, Buddhism actually has MANY Heavens and Hells and the various Devas of Hinduism carry over into it.)

I agree but that's why I said 'if I had to choose' I just like the way bhuddist beliefs are your happiness and not to please others or Forse others into believing (I know not very person in thsee religions do that more extreme stuff but just saying) I am all for people having there own religion but there are minorities that let it down almost.

 

But I get what your saying

[jeray2000 111]

She never said anything about "science denying her magic." I won't speak or answer for her, but I DO have an understanding of Pagan faiths and their relation to magic.

If you could explain it in general, not for her, I'd appreciate. She didn't say anything about "science denying her magic" but I'm under the impression that the general consensus in the scientific community was that magic isn't real.

She never said anything about "science denying her magic." I won't speak or answer for her, but I DO have an understanding of Pagan faiths and their relation to magic.

If you could explain it in general, not for her, I'd appreciate. She didn't say anything about "science denying her magic" but I'm under the impression that the general consensus in the scientific community is that magic isn't real.

[CookieK 74]

A lot of the scientific community at  the moment are  fundamental atheists. Fundamentalist atheists deny anything spiritual even if there is evidence that it exists. I don't need them to tell me  that everything I have ever believed in is a lie just because it doesn't fit their own beliefs. I'm actually very liberal  and love science but radical fundamentalist atheists are just as bad as radical fundamentalist christians at times.  

Edited September 25, 2015 by CookieK

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

If you could explain it in general, not for her, I'd appreciate. She didn't say anything about "science denying her magic" but I'm under the impression that the general consensus in the scientific community was that magic isn't real.

 

Well how does one define "magic?" People describe things that are perfectly within the realms of physical laws as "magic" all the time; a brilliant fire works display and the feeling of your first kiss are both just very complex chemical reactions but they mean so much more to the person experiencing them.

 

To the modern Wiccan, spells are just a form of prayer. That they are drawing upon their own energies or the energies of either nature, the stars, or a deity to effect an outcome. It would be simplistic to say that if one cast a spell to grant them a million dollars, it would drop out of the sky, but it might make them more willing to work and more ambitious in their career choices.

[MontagnaMagica 307]

I found these maps pretty interesting. We all know Christianity dominates the United States, but it's not all too clear what is second to this religion in adherents.

Buddhism dominates the West, which makes sense because there are a lot of Asians here compared to the rest of the country. Whereas, the Northeast appears to be a stronghold for Jews and the South for Muslims.

 

As an Arizonan, I find it very interesting how my state stands out with a larger Hindu population (Deleware is the only other "red" state. Why?). I can't figure out the correlation. And as a Bahá'í, I was really excited to see that we were represented in at least one state; South Carolina.

 

This second map show a more diversified picture, and is also intriguing.

Looking at this one, I can see that neither Islam nor Buddhism have quite the strongholds they appeared to have in the first map. Yet, Judaism still seems pretty strong in the Northeast. Bahá'í and Hinduism also have a greater showing across the board in this view.

 

Zoroastrianism doesn't color any states, but I'd guess it could be #3 in several counties. The same with Pagans, if I had to guess.

Edited September 29, 2015 by MontagnaMagica

[Steel Accord 6,660]

@@MontagnaMagica,

 

Oh I LOVE looking at the U.S. demographics from many angles. As one who grew up adjacent to the Del-Count area, two of my neighboring families were both practicing Hindus. One of them was even a direct immigrant family with first generation native born daughters. (Who made some of the kindest babysitters growing up.)

 

So while I can't say what it is about Deleware in particular, I can say that has some truth to it. 

 

Huh, a lot of Muslims in Florida where I live now. Don't doubt the chart but I haven't seen any mosques personally. Granted I still don't have a car so I'm not particularly well traveled in this state.

 

I would say there is not as much a "reason" for the different faiths in the different states apart from that's where the immigrants from those countries settled so they just become the American centers for those religions. If you want to get a tad stereotypical you could compare climates of those states with those who settled there.

 

For instance the Northern Mid-west has a lot of German Catholic traditions because that's where many German immigrants settled, far north and it snowed a lot. Whereas Texas is almost comparable to a lot of the Middle East in terrain and temperature so it would make sense for many Arab immigrants to settle in a place like that.

[-Octavia- 1,176]

 

Such is impossible. Faith is the heart of all religions, without faith, it truly is just a set of arbitrary rules.

So if you were to theoretically lose faith, you would no longer agree with the ideals of religion? Would you no longer see those arbitrary rules as being of sound moral values? Would you no longer find religion to be a basis of social and emotional support for many?

 

I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

 

I have faith that if I give a man a knife, he won't stab me in the back. (A mere metaphor.) This faith has been rewarded more than once. 

 

I believe there is a deity or otherwise order to sentient existence, I have no proof apart from my personal experience of this and I could totally be wrong. I believe nevertheless. I don't require those around me to.

 

No. You hope he doesn't stab you in the back. You may even trust him not to stab you in the back if you know him well enough. You hope and trust because evidence and experience suggests it is highly improbable that he is going to stab you in the back. 

 

Comparing that for which we have abundant evidence (the actions of a real person) to a faith claim, which is by definition that for which we lack evidence (like the existence of an undetectable creator of the universe), is not analogous. The idea that the man will not stab you in the back is not a radical hypothesis. The idea that there is a being who created the universe, and had a son who rose from the dead, is a radical claim. Equating an extraordinary claim with a mundane one, and then suggesting they "both require faith," is disanalogous.

 

 

 

Actually, before I continue any further, what is your definition of faith?

[Steel Accord 6,660]

So if you were to theoretically lose faith, you would no longer agree with the ideals of religion? Would you no longer see those arbitrary rules as being of sound moral values? Would you no longer find religion to be a basis of social and emotional support for many?   I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

 

I get the creeping suspicion you are leading me into a trap despite your stated intention. I will take those questions one at a time though.

 

-Along with idealism in general.

 

-The wording of your question already makes me suspicious. "those arbitrary rules as being of sound moral values" as opposed to, "see those sound moral values as being arbitrary," communicates a certain level of dismissiveness. Unless your intent was to co-opt my original meaning of the phrase "arbitrary rules" and was more like the second quote interpretation.

 

-How should I know? I can only speak for me. Even if I did loose faith and become the mirror universe version of myself, others would still feel as I once did.

 

No. You hope he doesn't stab you in the back. You may even trust him not to stab you in the back if you know him well enough. You hope and trust because evidence and experience suggests it is highly improbable that he is going to stab you in the back.    Comparing that for which we have abundant evidence (the actions of a real person) to a faith claim, which is by definition that for which we lack evidence (like the existence of an undetectable creator of the universe), is not analogous. The idea that the man will not stab you in the back is not a radical hypothesis. The idea that there is a being who created the universe, and had a son who rose from the dead, is a radical claim. Equating an extraordinary claim with a mundane one, and then suggesting they "both require faith," is disanalogous. Actually, before I continue any further, what is your definition of faith?

 

Clearly not yours. I don't want to continue this debate without a clear understanding going forward.

 

I have zero intention of converting anyone in my entire life. I have ZERO problems with atheism or people who are such. Can you claim the same from the opposite end?

 

(And please, for the love of God, don't say a phrase involving the word "throat.")

Edited September 29, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Sunwalker 981]

@: You sounded much more intelligent last time we talked... Right now you just sound like yet another juvenile atheist brat, who worships reason instead of using it. Instead of just calling the rules arbitrary, show where they are arbitrary. Instead of claiming that people believe without evidence, pick their reasons and arguments and show their flaws. If you don't know what those are, then you shouldn't be debating them in the first place.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Sunwalker

[jeray2000 111]

 

 

So if you were to theoretically lose faith, you would no longer agree with the ideals of religion? Would you no longer see those arbitrary rules as being of sound moral values? Would you no longer find religion to be a basis of social and emotional support for many?

 

I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

 

 

No. You hope he doesn't stab you in the back. You may even trust him not to stab you in the back if you know him well enough. You hope and trust because evidence and experience suggests it is highly improbable that he is going to stab you in the back. 

 

Comparing that for which we have abundant evidence (the actions of a real person) to a faith claim, which is by definition that for which we lack evidence (like the existence of an undetectable creator of the universe), is not analogous. The idea that the man will not stab you in the back is not a radical hypothesis. The idea that there is a being who created the universe, and had a son who rose from the dead, is a radical claim. Equating an extraordinary claim with a mundane one, and then suggesting they "both require faith," is disanalogous.

 

 

 

Actually, before I continue any further, what is your definition of faith?

 

Could you move this debate to the Let's Talk about Religion thread? I'm not a mod, and I won't report you or anything, but I think it would be a good idea to keep this thread relatively 'pure' of debate and focused on people talking about their religion without any sort of debate about said religions are correct or not.

 

https://mlpforums.com/topic/134926-lets-talk-about-religion/page-21

[TopQuark 409]

Simple. Just post in your religion. If its not included, quote this post and tell me what it is. I'll add it.

 

Discussion Time Everypony!

 

 

Baha'i, as I was born into it, and its adherence to science reflects my beliefs. I present this quote;

 

"The sciences and arts, all inventions, crafts, trades and their products have come forth from the intellect of man. It is evident that within the human organism the intellect occupies the supreme station. Therefore, if religious belief, principle or creed is not in accordance with the intellect and the power of reason, it is surely superstition."

(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 63)

 

Also, Voodoo is an actual legitimate religeon that seems to have a bad reputation for being of the occult. There was a nice exhibit for it at the Royal Ontario Museum a while back.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

Also, Voodoo is an actual legitimate religeon that seems to have a bad reputation for being of the occult. There was a nice exhibit for it at the Royal Ontario Museum a while back.

 

Wait what? Since when the Sixties?! The last time I saw it seriously related to the occult was in a James Bond movie, and even then it was less the religion itself but the trappings were just cover for an international drug ring.

 

Not saying it doesn't happen just that those who think such are pulling that view from sensationalized media of the past.